A Michigan state representative is constructing a House resolution to oppose considering domestic-partnership benefits in future contracts for same-sex state employees.

Rep. Ken Bradstreet, R-Gaylord, said he'll urge Gov. Jennifer Granholm to not consider including domestic-partner health-care benefits for same-sex state employees in future labor contracts.

Bradstreet said voters in Michigan already decided their stance on benefits for same-sex couples with the passage of Proposal 2 on Nov. 2, which defined the union of one man and one woman in marriage as the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

"It's unfathomable how, before the ballot boxes are hardly put away, some state leaders are going against citizens' wishes to even consider this issue in the labor-contract negotiations process," Bradstreet stated in a news release.

After Proposal 2 passed, Bradstreet also inquired about the legality of negotiating these benefits for same-sex couples in a letter to the Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.

There are five state labor contracts being negotiated, and domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples are being discussed, a benefit never before provided for same-sex state workers. The contracts determining benefits will go into effect Oct. 1, 2005.

Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Granholm, said the process of approving the contracts is underway, but by no means complete.

"His resolution is very premature," she said. "We think it's unnecessary."

Boyd also said the contract was negotiated prior to the election, and although there is concern, Granholm is confident the courts will address and resolve the issue.

This is the first effort that targets domestic partnership benefits since the passing of Proposal 2, said Val Meyers, president of MSU's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Faculty, Staff, and Graduate Student Association.

Meyers said because the proposal passed, she is not surprised there are now efforts to quash same-sex domestic partnership benefits. But before Proposal 2 passed, its supporters said it would not affect the benefits, she added.

"If the whole point of the proposal was to get rid of (domestic partnership) benefits, I don't know why supporters weren't up front about that at the time they were talking about the amendment," she said. "Someone is not being consistent."

Representatives from MSU, the University of Michigan and Wayne State University have spoken out to protect current domestic partnership benefit agreements.

But Meyers said although Bradstreet's effort to prevent the agreements only affects same-sex state employees, the benefits of city employees and university employees might be next.

"It's just the first snowball rolling down the mountainside," she said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.